Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mumsnet moderation policy

543 replies

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 15:59

If you've visited Site Stuff in recent times you'll know there's been a fair bit of grousing about our moderation policy. There have been lot of calls from the SN boards in particular but elsewhere too for us to delete many more posts than we are doing at the moment. Equally some on the feminism boards have been particularly angered by the position we've adopted around transphobia.

Those of you who have been around for a bit will also know that some of these debates have been going on a long time.

Mumsnet has always believed - been founded upon - the idea that civilised debate is a broadly positive thing. That we can disagree but agree that people have a right to different opinions. That freedom of speech is in general good and that we'd rather let the conversation flow than censor it. That exposing ourselves to the widest range of arguments and opinions is generally healthier than banishing the ones we don’t like.

Increasingly you'll find that other places on the web will filter out views and information you might not like automatically - Facebook and Google both do this based on the data they have about you (which is a lot). Just take a look at the debate raging in the US right now over whether this kind of tailoring of news – some call it the “filter bubble” effect – was to blame for the election of Donald Trump. Whatever you think of Facebook’s role in sending Trump to the White House, it’s unarguably becoming increasingly hard to watch or read something that hasn't been selected for you.

We've chosen to be public, un-paywalled and welcoming to newbies with different opinions. That means from time to time we may be confronted by views that we think are outlandish and even noxious. Of course - given we're called Mumsnet - we're always going to be a space dominated by women but the only qualification we require of our users is a basic level of civility.

This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate. But there are always going to be posts which fall into a grey area - posts that cause offence without intention, perhaps by using words in common use that some believe should be disallowed like “moron” or “idiot”. And our inclination here is to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship.

Many Mumsnetters have told us they've had their minds broadened by posts they've seen on Mumsnet and have become more tolerant and understanding as a result. We do understand it can be frustrating being told that we'd rather host a debate about why something was offensive so folks might change their mind, than delete it. We're mindful of the fact that many of our users are exhausted and often in impossibly difficult situations and would much rather people just understood or piped down - that we just deleted those comments which upset them or banned those who made them. But rightly or wrongly, that's not the Mumsnet we've chosen to be. We've chosen to be open and welcoming to new people and challenging different opinions. We've chosen to be a broad church not a narrow one.

At a time when the rise of intersectional politics often seems to be squeezing the space for public debate, when no-platforming has entered the everyday vocabulary of university campuses and social media reverberates daily to howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other, this seems more important than ever.

No-one is pretending that any of this stuff is easy. Rights only really mean anything when they are difficult to protect. And in the case of many of these arguments, we have deep instinctive sympathy with users calling for us to delete posts or ban certain words. We understand how anxious many who’ve battled for women’s rights feel. We understand that language plays an important part in making them feel marginalised and vulnerable. And many of us who have for years read the stirring and humbling posts on the SN boards will instinctively wish to defend parents who feel the casual, thoughtless language used by other posters is making their already hard lives harder still. We would go to the barricades with them in many ways, but not at the expense of a principle which makes Mumsnet what it is.

I think all this is worth stating because, frankly, the aggressive attitude of some Mumsnetters towards the community team in particular needs to stop. It's becoming demoralising and almost impossible to do the job. You couldn't actually hope to meet a nicer, more patient, diligent and selfless crew than the MN community team. Day in day out they do their level best to be fair, decent and consistent. Of course we get things wrong and don't always word things right - who doesn't? - and I know the majority of users know this and I'm really grateful for your support and kind words. The one thing I'm certain of, though, is that decent moderation is a big reason why Mumsnet has thrived and grown over the years.

But there are some users who, from what I've seen, are relentlessly denigrating the team in a way that can really only be described as aggressive heckling. Some of the attacks have been personal and downright nasty. In recent weeks members of the community team have been called ignorant, stupid, rude and not giving a shiny shite. The disabled members of our team have been described as tokens. I personally have been called sneering, supercilious, classist, venal and a hypocrite who’s drowning in the Kool-Aid amongst other things. (Let’s not get into a debate over whether that’s fair…)

The last thing we're saying is that we don't want feedback - we value it hugely, and we will always hold up our hands if we've messed up. (Incidentally almost none of the above critical posts have been deleted.) But, to be frank, if Mumsnet makes you that angry then maybe it's time to accept that it isn't the site for you - you probably need to acknowledge that we simply aren't and never will moderate the way you want us to. After all, we're here to make parents' lives easier and if the way we moderate raising your blood pressure on a daily basis - so much that you're calling the moderators “cunts” - then with the greatest respect I think you need to take a break.

In an increasingly polarised world of trigger warnings and safe spaces, preserving Mumsnet as a place that can host the widest debate in the most civilised fashion seems more important than ever. You’ll have to forgive me if this sounds pompous but this really is about freedom. As so often George Orwell put it best: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

OP posts:
GrinchyMcGrincherson · 11/11/2016 19:11

Completely agree as you know since I started the thread you linked. I feel special now and I'm glad it has helped you to realise that there are those of us who really appreciate all you do for this community.

toptoe · 11/11/2016 19:10

And I also agree that if someone says being called 'he' or 'she' offends them, then to deliberately call them that is intentional offensive. It doesn' t matter whether you agree with what that person says/does, intending to offend is just inciting an argument and derails discussion.

PurpleDaisies · 11/11/2016 19:09

Grin xenophile

Xenophile · 11/11/2016 19:08

Re:Tupperware lids.

Christ knows. But I lean towards a Douglas Adamsian wormhole in space theory to explain it. They just want to go home.

Booboobedoo · 11/11/2016 19:08

Well said.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:06

@ErrolTheDragon

Actually I found the deletion of my one referring to Trump quite funny, but it did point up that someone was being a bit heavy on the delete button.

I think some people have been unfair to mnhq and specifically Justine, but I'm not sure the heavy moderation of 'that' thread was constructive. If someone else invites a guest to their house who they know others have reason to object to, is it reasonable to expect them to be polite? Tolerance is a virtue up to a point. But not everything should be tolerated.

You would be much politer in person though Errol - I guarantee. And it's always been our policy to treat guests as we would people we'd invited for tea!

OP posts:
toptoe · 11/11/2016 19:04

I agree that different viewpoints should be heard. We don't have to agree with each other all the time. If we did, we'd be borg and have no need for a forum! I for one have had my opinions shifted by listening to something I might have felt 'offended' by in the past. Not just on MN either, but in RL and in other media. I like to see and hear things I don't agree with straight off. I like to hear what other people have to say, what their side of the issue is.

I also think that if the poster is not obviously being offensive for the sake of it and has said something offensive to some but not meant to be offensive (eg used the wrong terminology) their post should stand. This allows discussion about why people get offended etc. I don't think you can delete the posters who jump on them and tell them how offensive they were being, but if those posters jumped on them and called them names in order to be offensive on purpose, then they get deleted.

It's to do with INTENT. If someone intends to offend for the sake of it, then delete. If they offend someone by accident then don't delete. I guess this is probably what you do anyway, as I often agree with your deletions.

I don't think topics can be policed or deleted entirely if they are more aggressive than others. I don't like seeing a poster rounded on by others, but I also think that it happens sometimes and unless the posters having a pop are intending to offend personally then there isn't a lot MN can do other than watching it and stepping in if it starts detracting from the OP or looks a bit like bullying. The sort of 'peace and love' posts to just say 'we're keeping an eye on this one, cool down'. Sometimes it looks like a bit of goady bullying and actually it's a genuine disagreement of opinion that gets a bit shouty.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:03

Right I'm sorry for those I've not answered by I have to bugger off now - am late for something. And I've Blogfest tomorrow so probably won't be on but thanks for all the feedback and for the support, do keep it coming and I'll check back in soonest. Meantime the lovely community team will be here!

OP posts:
0dfod · 11/11/2016 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ErrolTheDragon · 11/11/2016 19:02

Actually I found the deletion of my one referring to Trump quite funny, but it did point up that someone was being a bit heavy on the delete button.

I think some people have been unfair to mnhq and specifically Justine, but I'm not sure the heavy moderation of 'that' thread was constructive. If someone else invites a guest to their house who they know others have reason to object to, is it reasonable to expect them to be polite? Tolerance is a virtue up to a point. But not everything should be tolerated.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:01

@VincentVL

Justine - what do you consider an 'unmitigated attack' on Paris Lees?

There are numerous very considered arguments on those threads as to why Paris Lees is a completely innappropriate person to invite to speak on 'blogging for good', including that they use social media and their articles for Vice etc to bully and harass named women, including some mumsnet bloggers, and that by giving PL credibility Mumsnet excuses and enables their cyber bullying.

I dont think you or anyone else from Mumsnet have yet made any response to those comments, other than to suggest that posters wouldnt be complaining if PL wasnt trans.

Thats what I mean by flippant.

There were some considered arguments and there were some personal attacks and some transphobic posts that were deleted. As I've pointed out a few times PLs has made some comments I heartily disagree with. Those views are shared however by and awful lot of women. Re the bullying I agree that sounds unpleasant, and I'm not going to try to defend it - maybe someone will ask her about that at blogfest - but I would say that I am quite sure PL's been the target of much worse bullying (I mean from everywhere not MN here).

OP posts:
Saucery · 11/11/2016 18:58

Fair enough, Justine, thanks for your response, that does make sense. It's the growth of the site that has led to a mismatch of expectations, I think.
Not from me, happy to be the troublesome carrot in the veg basket.

TresDesolee · 11/11/2016 18:55

Tbh I think the thing about deliberately using the hurtful pronoun is childish. I don't think people can change their biological sex. I think individuals have a right to ask people to respect their own sense of their own identity, just like I have the right to ask people to call me 'ms'.

Being able to say 'biological female is an unerasable category that requires its own language' is important

Being able to call a trans woman 'he' and bang on about her putative dick isn't important, it's childish and grim

bibbitybobbityyhat · 11/11/2016 18:55

Oh Justine, you've gone about 5.5 weeks too early in telling the trouble makers you don't mind if they just up and leave the site Grin.

But, seriously, I wonder why the public announcement (a taat or about several threads if you like) rather than just dealing with it robustly on the offending threads?

Manners on here have been getting worse and worse but you won't do anything about AIBU, and your own regular members have been warning you about the toxic effect on the site from that topic for flipping years.

VincentVL · 11/11/2016 18:54

"I felt a personal responsibilty to an individual who I'd invited to Blogfest as our guest"

I think this is the source of much of the problems posters were having with moderation on those threads. In effect your sense of personal responsibility to your guest has made them unaccountable for their behaviour, and when posters wanted you to be accountable for that, youve pulled rank as a Founder. Which is why it feels like youre treating us as plebs.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:53

@Saucery

Do you think you have enough employees on your Community Team, Justine?

Quite a few of the problems which lead to frustration seem to come from moderation being limited to more or less office hours and silly mistakes as illustrated above ('he' wrt to Donald Trump).

We actually have a system whereby the community team is manned from 7am-11pm seven days a week. I do think members sometimes have unreasonable about expectations about response time - generally we get to a report within a couple of hours. And often much sooner if it's multiply reported. You won't find that with most sites - as someone mentioned on this thread, Twitter for example is more like 2 days. Sometimes it might be that a mod is unsure and seeking a second opinion, which I also think is fair enough. Most forums actually have unpaid mods. We've been fairly unique in investing in a large team who (contrary to popular view) get a fair bit of training and have an awful lot of expertise.

OP posts:
TresDesolee · 11/11/2016 18:51

If that hairy orange fascist (trump, to be clear) is a woman things are about to get even more bloody confusing

whoputthecatout · 11/11/2016 18:51

I have followed the bunfight on FWR re PL. I think MNHQ generally do a stupendous (and uneviable) job with a light touch on moderation and I am loathe to criticise.

However, Karl Popper made a great point about the paradox of tolerance. He said: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

PL is an example of extreme intolerance to women. Their attitude to women, their comments about them are utterly odious and unacceptable, dismissive, repugnant and misogynistic in the extreme. It is not surprising then that that on a board largely populated by women many posters find this person's attitude "intolerable".

I think Karl Popper was right and MNHQ's decision on this person was an example of tolerating the intolerable - and as we now seeing in these arguments about moderating putting MNs record of tolerance at risk.

What Karl Popper said is spot on.

Thisjustinno · 11/11/2016 18:51

I think a lot of the confusion around trans issues on MN started with the Spartacus threads. And I do not think Justine and MNHQ are posting this thread just about trans issues but about the wider demands and criticisms of MN which have been building for a while.

I wasn't Spartacus even though I agree with a lot of concerns about trans issues. I wasn't Spartacus because I won't misgender. I use the preferred pronouns for people. I work in health care and would quite rightly be disciplined for refusing to refer to a transwoman or transman as their preferred gender. But separate from that; I treat people with respect and whatever they want me to call them - I will. I have trans friends. I wasn't going to engage in a thread with people declaring 'Caitlyn Jenner is a man, I will always call a man he' etc etc while also admitting they wouldn't say that to a transperson in RL. I act on RL as I do online. I have little regard for people hiding behind an anonymous website to say things they wouldn't normally say. And when I did dip my toe in (even though I agree with lots of concerns about trans issues and it's effect on women's rights and safety) I wasn't welcome.

Before Spartacus - MN deleted for deliberate misgendering. But they allowed it for Spartacus and this is where people have understandably become confused when they're not allowed to refer to PL as he. It should have never been allowed on MN because it isn't accepted in RL and IS considered to be anti-trans.

MN should have had a firm line and not deviated. This is one of the reasons why people are confused now. PL misogyny is a different issue altogether (which I agree makes her unsuitable IMO for MN blogfest) .

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 11/11/2016 18:50

Should say in repsonse to another poster

I have seen people have a pop at MNHQ in all sorts of threads

It is in no way confined or even mainly in Feminism

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 11/11/2016 18:50

I may be wrong but worra posted re people attacking mnhq on FWR

As far as I've ever seen (that I remember?!) it really isn't a big thing that is all over FWR, it was this one thread about Paris Lees.

Datun · 11/11/2016 18:49

Hi Justine

I've been vocal on the other thread, because it infuriates me. However I can totally tell that you're all feeling rather beleaguered about the entire issue.

I disagree with your definition of transphobia which included the word prejudice, the definition of which is 'the preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience.'

However, I do consider that you do a bang up job. And I'm glad you have confirmed that you are all feminists!

You may not have agreed with the way things were put, but the general theme was allowed to stand. Which is appreciated.

I'm sorry if there were personal attacks, emotions run high, but out of respect for what you've said, I've bowed out of the discussion.

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 11/11/2016 18:49

That's fair enough Justine, a great many of the deletions I did expect to see.

But what about the two examples, the Trump post and the other? Can you see that those posters might have felt that unfair?

Bejazzled · 11/11/2016 18:47

I agree with previous posters - it needed said and Justine said it well 👍

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 11/11/2016 18:47

Yes, VincentVL. That was one of the examples I was thinking of. Another was a poster mentioning that PL won young campaigning journalist of the year 2015. There was no misgendering. I think that was a mistaken deletion. Otherwise, what was the problem with saying that?